R. v. Laboissonniere Date:, 2013 BCPC 182

Citation: R. v. Laboissonniere Date: 20130709 2013 BCPC 0182 File No: 223518-1-V Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. SOPHIE CARMELLE LABOISSONNIERE EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE B. BASTIN Counsel for the Crown: P. Tomasson Counsel for the Defendant: D. Baker Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 9, 2013

Date of Judgment: July 9, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: I will commence judgment now with the introductory portion. Regina versus Sophie Carmelle Laboissonniere. Sentence. [ 2 ] The defendant, Sophie Carmelle Laboissonniere, is before the court on two charges in Information Number 223518-1-V. Count 1 is a charge of taking

part in a riot in Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 15, 2011. Count 2 is a charge of breaking and entering the premises of London Drugs at 710 Granville Street in the city of Vancouver, also on June 15, 2011. [ 3 ] On January 7 last, Ms. Laboissonniere, through counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the charge in Count 1 of the subject information. That plea was confirmed before this court on May 27 last, and on that date, the sentence proceedings in this matter commenced.

Crown counsel has indicated that a stay of proceedings will be entered on Count 2 of the information after the completion of sentence proceedings on Count 1. [ 4 ] At the time of the entering of the guilty plea on Count 1, the court ordered a pre-sentence report and a psychological report for the defendant. Those reports have been filed as exhibits in this proceeding.

The pre-sentence report is Exhibit 10 on sentence; the psychological report is Exhibit 11 on sentence. [ 5 ] In addition to those two reports, a large body of material was placed before the court by both counsel in the course of the sentence proceeding and entered as exhibits.

Those exhibits are as follows: Exhibit 1, Crown book of documents; Exhibit 2, DVD videodisc; Exhibit 3, admissions of fact; Exhibit 4, Crown sentencing chart; Exhibit 5, index of Crown case authorities; Exhibit 6, student evaluations of presentations made by the defendant; Exhibit 7, three sets of material relating to the defendant, being Tab A - reference letters, Tab B - London Drugs correspondence, and Tab C - medical letters; Exhibit 8, index of defence case authorities; Exhibit 9, three volumes entitled "media exposure" related to the defendant. [ 6 ] At the conclusion of the sentence proceedings of May 27, judgment on sentence was reserved until Monday, June 24, 2013.

On Friday, June 21, 2013, an important decision was rendered by my colleague Judge Harris in relation to a charge of participating in a riot. That decision was R. v. Matthew John Lennox , Vancouver Registry No. 223520-1-V. As a result of that development, sentence in the subject case was adjourned until today to allow counsel to make submissions on the applicability of the Lennox case. Those submissions have been made a few minutes ago in this court and will, of course, be fully considered in due course in this ruling. [ 7 ] This case involves the participation of the defendant, Ms.

Laboissonniere, in what has become known as the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot. The riot occurred in the downtown core of the city of Vancouver on the evening of June 15, 2011. The riot occurred following Game 7 of the Stanley Cup hockey finals between the Vancouver Canucks and the Boston Bruins. The game ended at approximately 7:45 p.m. with Boston winning the game and the Stanley Cup. [ 8 ] An area of downtown Vancouver referred to as the "live site" was set up as the main public viewing site for people to watch the hockey game on a large outdoor television screen.

The live site was in the area of Vancouver around the Vancouver Public Library near the intersection of Georgia and Hamilton Streets. More than 50,000 people watched the game at the live site. More than 150,000 people were in the downtown core of Vancouver on the night of the hockey game. [ 9 ] The riot began with a passenger vehicle being overturned at the live site at approximately 7:42 p.m. Shortly before 8 p.m., that vehicle was set on fire. At approximately 8:30 p.m., a second vehicle was overturned and set on fire at the live site.

Thereafter, the development of the riot is described as follows in the admissions of fact that are Exhibit 3 in this proceeding [as read in]: As the rioting crowds occupied West Georgia Street and the surrounding areas, multiple commercial premise windows were broken and the contents of the premises looted. Vehicles were vandalized, broken into, and set on fire. Crowds of people faced off against the police, and projectiles were thrown at the police. Numerous police officers and civilians were assaulted.

An atmosphere of lawlessness, violence, and destruction quickly consumed the downtown core of Vancouver, including the area of Granville Street and West Georgia Street where a London Drugs store is located. The London Drugs store was approximately three blocks west of the live site. [ 10 ] The specific address of the London Drugs store is 710 Granville Street. The store is located on the southeast corner of Granville and West Georgia Streets in the heart of downtown Vancouver. [ 11 ] The context of the riot is an important part of this case and is also included in the admissions of fact in Exhibit 3.

The riot involved the deployment of 928 police officers, 63 Vancouver Fire and Rescue personnel, and 44 members of the BC Ambulance Service. The 9-1-1 emergency telephone service was overwhelmed, as was the emergency room of the St. Paul's Hospital that services the downtown core of Vancouver. The nature of the riot seriously affected the ability of the BC Ambulance Service to provide medical assistance to anyone in the riot area requiring that assistance. [ 12 ] The Integrated Riot Investigation Team of the Vancouver Police Department determined that 297 riot events occurred in the course of the riot.

Those riot events consisted of arsons, mischiefs, break and enters, and assaults. A hundred and twelve businesses were damaged, and 122 vehicles were damaged or destroyed, including civilian, business, and emergency vehicles. The resulting monetary loss from the riot was slightly less than $4 million as calculated to date. [ 13 ] The effect of the riot on certain individuals varied greatly, but what was common to all was "that the riot has stripped the sense of safety and security from citizens of Vancouver." [ 14 ] Within the general riot, there were several specific sites of criminal activity.

The London Drugs store referred to above was one of those sites. The subject case involves what occurred at that store and the conduct of the defendant at that location.

[ 15 ] The videodisc that is Exhibit 2 in this proceeding was played in court in the course of the Crown's submission on sentence. The video shows the general context of the riot at locations other than the London Drugs store. The video also shows the specific events that occurred at that store. [ 16 ] In addition to the video, paragraphs 9 to 26 inclusive of the admissions of fact (Exhibit 3) describe what occurred at the London Drugs store on the night of the riot. On that night, the store was open for business and was scheduled to close at 10 p.m.

Because of the riot, the store supervisor decided to close the store early at 7:40 p.m. By 8 p.m., the main entrance to the store was secured closed by the locking of thick glass doors on the exterior and a steel gate on the interior of that entrance. [ 17 ] Over the approximate one hour after the securing of the front entrance, the entrance was attacked by people outside the store striking the thick glass doors and other windows at the entrance.

During that time, the premises of numerous businesses in the area had their windows smashed and merchandise stolen from them. [ 18 ] At approximately 9:50 p.m., store employees at the London Drugs store secured all monies on site into the store safe, and out of concern for safety, the store supervisor directed all store employees to hide in a small, windowless security room in the store basement.

In the security room, staff members could see what was occurring in the store by viewing screens of a closed-circuit television system in the store. [ 19 ] At approximately 10 p.m., members of the crowd at the main entrance began smashing the exterior large glass doors, and by approximately 10:16 p.m., the front entrance had been completely breached. At that time, numerous rioters entered the store and damaged and stole property. The damage to and looting of the store was done by approximately 300 people and lasted approximately 25 minutes. The financial loss to the store was just under $900,000.

Photographs of the store damage are at Tab 11 of Exhibit 1, the Crown book of documents. [ 20 ] The effect of the conduct of the rioters on the employees of the London Drugs store is described in the several victim impact statements that are included in Exhibit 1 from Tab 3 to Tab 9 inclusive. [ 21 ] I will now address the actions of Ms. Laboissonniere that constitute her participation in the riot. [ 22 ] The Vancouver Police investigation of the riot involved the collection of video material from several sources. The investigation resulted in the discovery of a photograph of Ms.

Laboissonniere entering the London Drugs store. The photograph was published in an effort to have Ms. Laboissonniere identified. Ms. Laboissonniere learned of the photograph, and on September 30, 2011, she turned herself in to the Vancouver Police. [ 23 ] In the presence of her counsel, she provided the police with an affidavit setting out her actions in Vancouver generally on the night of the riot and particularly at the London Drugs store. That affidavit is at Tab 13 of Exhibit 1, the Crown book of documents. In the affidavit, Ms.

Laboissonniere admits to entering the London Drugs store and stealing from within the store two bottles of water, a bag of potato chips, and a Vancouver Canucks water bottle and then quickly leaving the store and dropping the items she had taken. [ 24 ] The video evidence is consistent with Ms. Laboissonniere's statement as to her actions at the London Drugs store. Ms. Laboissonniere entered the store at approximately 10:15 p.m. with a large group of people. She was in the store for only approximately 30 seconds. [ 25 ] Ms.

Laboissonniere states in her affidavit that she was in downtown Vancouver with her sister on the night of the riot and that she watched the hockey game at a location near the Convention Centre. After the game, she and her sister walked to the area of The Bay store in the immediate vicinity of London Drugs. During that walk, Ms. Laboissonniere "observed people smashing store windows and damaging cars." [ 26 ] At the London Drugs store, before she entered the store, Ms. Laboissonniere observed a group of people trying to tear off the metal security curtain of the store.

Eventually, the security curtain was completely torn away. At that point, she made "a split-second decision to run in with the crowd, and did so." [ 27 ] I will now set out the personal circumstances of the defendant. [ 28 ] Ms. Laboissonniere was born in Vancouver on October 6, 1991. She was 19 years of age at the time of her participation in the riot. She is now 21. Ms. Laboissonniere's parents divorced when she was only two years of age. She was raised in Richmond, British Columbia, by her father and with the assistance of Ms. Susan Label, who is Mr. Laboissonniere's girlfriend of many years. [ 29 ] Ms.

Laboissonniere's relationship with her mother was distant for several years. She did not live with her mother after age seven, and as a result of an incident in June of 2011, Ms. Laboissonniere has not seen her mother since that time. [ 30 ] Ms. Laboissonniere has suffered from psychological disorders since she was 12 years of age. She has a lengthy history of anxiety and depression and has been hospitalized on and off since 2008, most recently for two weeks in October of 2011. [ 31 ] In the psychiatric report, which is Exhibit 11 in these proceedings, Dr. Adilman states that he suspects Ms.

Laboissonniere's psychiatric issues are related to her feelings of loss and abandonment concerning her mother. [ 32 ] Over the years of her treatment, Ms. Laboissonniere was prescribed antidepressant medications. She told Dr. Adilman that at the time of the subject offence she was not taking such medicine. Dr. Adilman's report states that "she was somewhat vague and unclear about the timing of when this medication was either decreased or discontinued." [ 33 ] Ms. Laboissonniere's psychiatric condition is clearly documented by the medical letters that are at Tab C of Exhibit 7 herein. [ 34 ] Ms.

Laboissonniere graduated from McMath Secondary School in Richmond and is currently attending Langara College in the

Bachelor of Arts program. She plans to enter an interior design program next September at Kwantlen University-College and she hopes to have a career in that field. [ 35 ] Ms. Laboissonniere has had modest employment in the past but is currently unemployed as a result of devoting her time to her schooling. [ 36 ] Ms. Laboissonniere currently resides with her father in Richmond. [ 37 ] Ms. Laboissonniere had participated in beauty pageants prior to the events of June 15, 2011, and she also had a personal blog.

She has been the subject of a great deal of public scrutiny and media exposure as a result of her commission of the subject offence. The extent of the media exposure is shown by the material that comprises Exhibit 9 in these proceedings. That material consists of three large binders of press clippings showing that Ms. Laboissonniere has been the subject of a large amount of local, national, and international media coverage as a result of the subject offence. [ 38 ] Since her involvement in the riot, Ms. Laboissonniere has undertaken a program whereby she makes presentations to students at her former high school.

Those presentations inform the students about the consequences she has faced as a result of her conduct on the night of the riot. [ 39 ] Exhibit 6 in these proceedings consists of 72 student evaluations of the presentations of the defendant. Those evaluations indicate that the students received the message from the presentations to think before they act. The presentations were made at McMath Secondary School in Richmond, British Columbia, and the current principal of the school, Mr. Neil Kamide, gave evidence at the sentence hearing as to the general positive effect of Ms.

Laboissonniere's presentations for the students at the school. [ 40 ] The material at Tab B of Exhibit 7 in these proceedings shows that Ms. Laboissonniere has apologized to London Drugs Limited for her actions on the night of the riot and has made restitution to that company in the amount of $500. [ 41 ] At the conclusion of the sentence proceeding of May 27 last, Ms.

Laboissonniere addressed the court and formally apologized for and expressed remorse for her actions on the night of June 15, 2011. [ 42 ] The main issue in the sentencing of the defendant is whether or not the sentence should result in her having a criminal record. A sentence of a conditional discharge would mean that Ms. Laboissonniere would not have a criminal record for the subject offence provided that she complied with the conditions of a probation order.

A conditional discharge can only be imposed if the court finds that it is in the interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest. [ 43 ] If a conditional discharge is not granted in this case, a related issue arises as to whether or not a jail term should be imposed. [ 44 ] That concludes the introductory part of my judgment. As I indicated a while ago, I will require some time now to factor into the conclusatory part of the judgment the submissions I have heard this afternoon. That will take approximately 30 minutes, so court will use that time and take the usual afternoon adjournment.

Court will adjourn until 3:15, and I will continue with my judgment at that time. Court will adjourn, please, until 3:15. (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED/PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED) [ 45 ] THE COURT: Be seated, please. I will now continue with the delivery of my reasons on sentence in the Laboissonniere case. [ 46 ] In this case, counsel for the defence has presented a thorough and forceful submission to the court submitting that a conditional discharge is an appropriate sentence for the accused.

The central submission of the defence is that this is an exceptional case and that circumstances of the defendant are separate and apart from those of others who have been sentenced for participating in the June 15, 2011, riot. [ 47 ] Counsel for the defence submits that there are obvious mitigating factors that apply to sentencing in this case, such as the youth of the accused, her lack of a criminal record, her guilty plea, and her remorse. But apart from those factors, the defence submits that there are three special areas of Ms. Laboissonniere's circumstances that clearly distinguish this case from others.

Those areas, it is submitted, involve the intense media attention to which the accused has been exposed, the post-charge conduct of the accused, and the psychological health issues of the accused. [ 48 ] As to the media attention to which the accused has been exposed, the defence submits that it has been extraordinary, as evidenced by the material in Exhibit 9 before the court.

It is submitted that this exposure has resulted in public humiliation of the defendant and that the exposure is so intense and pervasive so as to satisfy the need for general deterrence in this case. [ 49 ] As to the post-charge conduct of the accused, the defence refers to the several school presentations by made by the accused since she was charged with participating in the riot. Counsel for the defence draws the court's attention to the numerous student evaluations in Exhibit 6 and the evidence of Mr.

Kamide and submits that the efforts of the defendant in talking to students has had a profound effect upon them and serves to deter them in the future from committing a criminal offence by making them realize the consequences of making a poor decision. [ 50 ] Counsel for the defence submits that the media exposure to which the accused has been subjected, combined with her sincere and diligent efforts to inform young persons of the consequences of poor life choices, satisfies the need for general deterrence in this case and results in a discharge being not contrary to the public interest. [ 51 ] As to the psychological health issues of the defendant, the defence submits that that condition is well-documented in the medical reports that are before the court.

Counsel for the defence submits that the defendant was altering her medication during the time frame of the subject offence and that that factor may have affected her impulse control. Counsel for the defence submits that the particular mental health issues of the defendant are another exceptional aspect of this case.

[52] Counsel for the defence submits that the several case authorities to which the court has been referred do not rule out a dischargefor the offence of participating in a riot. It is submitted that this position is so even in light of the recent British Columbia Court ofAppeal decision in R. v. Peepre, 2013 BCCA 115. Defence counsel submits that the Peepre decision makes it clear that in all cases thecourt must consider the personal circumstances of the offender. [53] In the course of his submission, defence counsel referred to the several case authorities that are listed in the index that is Exhibit8.

One such case of note is that of R. v. Robinson, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1829, where a prominent British Columbia member of parliamentwas granted a conditional discharge for the offence of theft of a very expensive ring.

Defence counsel refers to the Robinson case, andothers, in support of his submission that public notoriety of a matter in the media and the remorse of the offender are both relevantconsiderations for the court to apply in finding a discharge to be appropriate. [54] In sentence submissions earlier this afternoon, defence counsel thoroughly addressed the applicability of the recent Lennox caseto the subject case. Defence counsel submits that there is little difference between the actions of Mr. Lennox and those of Ms.Laboissonniere at the London Drugs store on the night of the riot.

Defence counsel submits that the special personal circumstances ofMs. Laboissonniere make a conditional discharge at least equally appropriate for her as for Mr. Lennox. [55] Defence counsel asks the court to consider the sentencing principle of parity in weighing the applicability of the Lennox case tothe subject case. [56] Defence counsel submits that the accused satisfies the requirements for a discharge that were set out in the now 40-year-oldBritish Columbia Court of Appeal landmark decision in R. v. Fallofield, (BC CA), [1973] B.C.J.

No. 559. [57] In conclusion, counsel for the defence asks the court to consider the youth of the defendant, her plea of guilty, her lack of acriminal record, her remorse, her post-offence conduct in making restitution and seminar presentations, her medical condition, thereference letters at Tab A of Exhibit 7, and the extreme media exposure to which the accused has been subjected as all being factors thatcollectively should cause the court to conclude that a discharge is appropriate in the subject case as being in the interests of the accusedand not contrary to the public interest. [58] Counsel for the Crown agrees that there are many mitigating factors with respect to the sentencing of the accused for thesubject offence.

However, it is submitted by Crown counsel that those mitigating circumstances should moderate the appropriatesentence from an actual jail term of a few months to a jail term of two months to be served in the community by way of a conditionalsentence order and to be followed by a period of probation. [59] Crown counsel submits that such a sentence would be proportional to those imposed to date on approximately 70 individualswho have been sentenced for participating in the 2011 Vancouver riot. [60] Crown counsel submits that a discharge for the defendant in this case would be contrary to the public interest for severalreasons.

It is submitted that a discharge would not properly address the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence. Crowncounsel submits that the accused has a moderate level of moral responsibility or blameworthiness because of the degree and scope of herparticipation in the riot.

In this regard, it is submitted that the accused, for a period of approximately two hours, observed general eventsinvolved in the riot and specific events at the London Drugs store before she made the decision to enter the store and steal things. [61] On May 27 last, Crown counsel submitted that as of that date, seven cases had considered the suitability of a discharge fordefendants who participated in the June 15, 2011, riot and that all of those cases rejected such a sentence as being appropriate. Four ofthose cases were included in the Crown book of authorities and were R. v. Cacnio, R. v. Pateman, R. v.

Epp, and R. v. MacMillan. [62] In her supplementary submission today, Crown counsel addressed the recent Lennox case. With respect to that case, the Crownsubmits that it involves circumstances that are unique and quite different from the case at bar and should not in any way operate to havethis court conclude that a discharge is appropriate for Ms. Laboissonniere. [63] Crown counsel has stressed in her general submission in this case the effect the rioting crowd had upon the employees of theLondon Drugs store. Many of those employees feared for their lives.

The effect of the rioters' actions on those employees is described inthe victim impact statements that are filed in this proceeding. [64] Crown counsel also stresses in her submission the seriousness of the riot in general and therefore the seriousness of Ms.Laboissonniere's participation in it. [65] Crown counsel has referred to the recent case of R. v. Peepre and submits that a person who participates in a riot is not to besentenced in isolation but, rather, in the overall context of the riot.

Crown counsel has submitted that the accused was "in the middle offull-blown public disorder" and that she knew what she was participating in when she chose to enter London Drugs and to steal things. Moreover, it is submitted that the video and the photograph of Ms. Laboissonniere entering the store shows her to be smiling, indicatingthat she was enjoying what she was doing. [66] Crown counsel submits that the conduct of the accused was at the low end of the range of illegal conduct of the rioterssentenced to date. Nevertheless, Crown counsel submits that a jail term is required to denounce that conduct.

The Crown submits thatthe accused qualifies to serve that sentence in the community by way of a conditional sentence order. It is submitted that this was thegeneral approach taken by the courts in the Cacnio, Pateman, Epp, and MacMillan cases referred to above. [67] The imposition of a discharge requires the court to conclude that such a sentence is not contrary to the public interest. On thisissue, the Crown submits that looting was an integral part of the riot and a significant part of the huge financial losses suffered bybusinesses as a result of the riot.

Crown counsel also submits that looting was an important component of the circumstances that causedgreat fear for employees of businesses such as those of the London Drugs store. [68] Crown counsel submits that the significant publicity to which the defendant has been subjected was to be expected for a person

with her background committing a serious crime in a public setting where it was obvious that numerous cameras were filming.

Crown counsel submits that the media exposure for the accused is not a mitigating circumstance on sentence in this case or, at least, is not mitigating to the extent of making a discharge a fit sentence in this case. [ 69 ] The Crown submits that the granting of a discharge in this case would be contrary to the public interest. [ 70 ] Defence counsel has taken issue with at least three aspects of the Crown's submission. [ 71 ] First, it is submitted that the defendant walked towards the area of the London Drugs store from a direction where she did not observe many of the riot events referred to by the Crown. [ 72 ] Second, the defence submits that the expression on the defendant's face when entering the London Drugs store is not necessarily one of smiling and therefore enjoyment in what she was doing. [ 73 ] Finally, counsel for the defence disagrees with the Crown's submission as to the applicability of the recent Lennox decision to the case at bar.

In this regard, the defence submits that the two cases are reasonably similar and with the consideration of the special mitigating circumstances of Ms. Laboissonniere, this court should conclude that a conditional discharge is the appropriate sentence in this case. [ 74 ] I begin my formal ruling on sentence by considering the overall nature of the riot in the city of Vancouver on June 15, 2011. That issue was addressed, in part, at paragraph 12 of the recent Court of Appeal case of R. v. Peepre . In those comments, the court described the riot in much the same language as has been used above in this ruling.

What obviously flows from the court's description of the riot in the Peepre case is that the riot was a very serious incident and that it was a serious criminal offence for anyone to participate in it. [ 75 ] What occurred at the London Drugs store at Granville and Georgia Streets at the time of the riot has also been fully set out above. The photographs at Tab 11 of Exhibit 1 show the damage to the store. The photographs can only be described as shocking.

The effect of the rioters' actions on the store employees was traumatic and is described by some of them in the victim impact statements filed in this proceeding. [ 76 ] This court must be mindful of the general approach to be taken in the sentencing of a person for participating in a riot that was set out as follows at paragraph 27 of the Peepre case: Special considerations apply to sentences imposed for participation in a riot.

Sentencing an offender for participation in criminal acts that involve widespread public disorder requires a court to look not only at the offender’s individual conduct, but also the broader context in which the individual participated. A rioter is culpable for not only his own conduct: he bears, in a general way, a share of responsibility for the more widespread acts of lawlessness in which he participated . . .

The actions of the accused in this case were more serious in the context of a riot than would otherwise be the case. [ 77 ] There are many mitigating factors that apply to the sentencing of the accused in this matter. Those include her youth, her lack of a criminal record, her guilty plea, her mental health condition, her remorse, her post-offence conduct, and the content of the letters of reference filed by the defence. [ 78 ] I cannot find on the basis of the material before the court that the taking or not taking of medication by the defendant played any role in her conduct on the night of the riot.

As has been noted above, Dr. Adilman in his report (Exhibit 11) states that the accused was not clear as to the time she may have decreased or discontinued her medication. Dr. Adilman's report does give some support for the defence submission that Ms. Laboissonniere's act in entering the London Drugs store was impulsive and possibly related to her medical condition. Dr. Adilman does refer to the actions of the accused at page 5 of his report as follows [as read in]: She rather impulsively entered London Drugs and took some articles. [ 79 ] Ms.

Laboissonniere's medical condition is an important mitigating factor on sentence, whether or not it was a cause of her lack of impulse control. [ 80 ] On the issue of the accused's knowledge as to what was generally occurring in downtown Vancouver where she was the night of the riot, I find that for a time period of approximately two hours the accused did observe incidents related to the riot as she and her sister walked from the area of the Convention Centre to the area of the London Drugs store.

I do accept the defence submission that the accused did not see the riot events near the intersection of Seymour and Georgia Streets because she did not walk near that location on her way to the area of London Drugs. [ 81 ] I am respectfully not able to agree with the defence submission that it is not clear that the accused is smiling when entering the London Drugs store.

In my opinion, the photograph of that event at Tab 12 of Exhibit 1 clearly shows the accused to be smiling and, at least at that moment, apparently enjoying what she was doing. [ 82 ] I will now address the issue of the media exposure to which the accused has been subjected as a result of the charge against her. [ 83 ] The three volumes of material in Exhibit 9 show that that exposure has been very extensive and pervasive. The exposure was because of the accused's notoriety that was occasioned by her participation in and success in beauty pageants prior to the riot.

I accept that the media exposure has been unpleasant for the accused and has been a prime deterrent for her ever committing a criminal offence in the future.

[ 84 ] In my opinion, the case authorities placed before the court make it clear that media exposure can be a mitigating factor on sentence. I find that the very significant media exposure in this case is a mitigating factor on sentence but not to the extent submitted by defence counsel. [ 85 ] The accused, of course, knew of her notoriety and knew her actions and those of other rioters were being filmed in a public setting by many persons.

These factors are reasons to attach less weight on sentence to the media exposure issue than suggested by defence counsel. [ 86 ] I do attach very significant weight on sentence to the post-offence conduct of the accused. I am well satisfied that the accused's remorse is genuine. She has apologized to London Drugs and has made restitution to that company in the amount of $500. Most significantly, Ms. Laboissonniere, by her own initiative, has made seminar presentations to several student classes at her former high school. The 72 student evaluations of Ms. Laboissonniere and the evidence of Mr.

Kamide demonstrate the positive effect of what was said to the students.

That effect operates as a general deterrent to those students and perhaps others to assist in preventing them from committing a criminal offence by making them think before they act. [ 87 ] As guidance on how to weigh and apply the many considerations involved in the sentencing of the accused herein, I return to the Peepre case, and I am mindful of the following comment of the court at paragraph 27 of that judgment: By using the deterrent and denunciatory effects of sentencing in a manner that accounts for the current conditions in and values of the community, courts can discourage individuals from participating in acts of public violence and, hopefully, prevent the reoccurrence of events like the Stanley Cup riot. [ 88 ] To summarize, then, the general mitigating circumstances on sentence that apply to Ms.

Laboissonniere are her youth, her plea of guilty, her remorse, her previous good conduct prior to the offence, her lack of a criminal record, the positive reference letters before the court, and the deterrent effect of the media exposure to which she has been subjected. [ 89 ] The special mitigating factors are the low level of her criminal conduct, her medical condition, and her post-offence conduct. It should be clearly stated that the accused's medical condition is well-documented in the medical reports at Tab C of Exhibit 7. For example, Dr.

Susan Lomax began treating the accused in March of 2008 for major depression.

The accused has been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment as recently as October of 2011. [ 90 ] The aggravating circumstances that apply to sentence in this case are obvious and essentially involve what the accused did on the evening of June 15, 2011, the context in which she did it, and the effect of the collective actions of the rioters on others. [ 91 ] Balancing everything that is before the court in this matter of sentence, in view of the many mitigating circumstances that apply, I have no difficulty in concluding that it is not necessary for a jail term to be imposed, conventional or otherwise, to address the principles of sentence that are to be applied. [ 92 ] The practical sentence options that remain, then, are a suspended sentence or a conditional discharge.

A suspended sentence carries with it a criminal record; a conditional discharge does not. [ 93 ] A criminal record is a powerful deterrent because of its effect on the life of a person by affecting employment, travel, and public regard. A criminal record can be removed or suspended upon application to the National Parole Board. That application can only be considered after the passage of 10 years following any period of probation imposed on an offender.

The earliest any criminal record resulting from this case could be removed would be approximately 12 years from today, allowing for the 10-year waiting period, the probationary period, and the time for processing the application. [ 94 ] Ms. Laboissonniere will soon be 22 years of age. Therefore, she will be almost 34 years of age at the earliest time it would be possible to have any criminal record resulting from this case removed or suspended. [ 95 ] The accused was 19 years of age when she committed the subject offence more than two years ago. She is now in her fourth year of college.

She has bright prospects for her future. In my opinion, the imposition of a criminal record on Ms. Laboissonniere could have devastating consequences for her and, in practical terms, could ruin her life. Still, this court is required to impose that criminal record unless the court concludes that a discharge is not contrary to the public interest. [ 96 ] On this issue, it must first be clearly kept in mind exactly what the accused did to participate in the riot. The actions of the rioters varied greatly as to their severity. [ 97 ] The actions of Ms.

Laboissonniere were to enter the London Drugs store behind several other persons through a large opening, select a bag of potato chips, two bottles of water, and a Vancouver Canucks water bottle and leave the store after a period of approximately 30 seconds. The accused immediately discarded the stolen items after she left the store. Apart from the items she removed from the store, she did not damage or disturb any property. [ 98 ] The accused's decision to enter the store was impulsive and spur of the moment.

Her illegal conduct is in stark contrast to many other rioters who damaged property and committed serious acts of looting or violence. [ 99 ] As of May 27 last, the first day of sentence submissions in this case, there had not been a conditional discharge granted by any court for the offence of participating in the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot. That changed with the granting of a conditional discharge in the Lennox case by my colleague Judge Harris on June 21 last. [ 100 ] Mr.

Lennox entered the London Drugs store on two occasions for a period of approximately four minutes in total and watched the actions of those in the store and picked up a small item and left the store. The court found that a criminal record would seriously

affect Mr. Lennox's employment. I cannot find that Ms. Laboissonniere's conduct in the store was more serious than that of Mr. Lennox, especially considering that she was in the store for only about 30 seconds. In that short period of time, it is unlikely that she had any significant personal effect upon the employees who were hiding in the basement of the store. [ 101 ] The public has an interest in deterring possible future rioters with the imposition of a criminal record on those involved in the June 2011 Vancouver riot, but the public also has an interest in the future of Ms.

Laboissonniere and other offenders who committed acts similar to those she committed. Looking to the future, there is a high probability that a criminal record for the accused would have serious adverse consequences for her that may be disproportionate to her brief, impulsive conduct that was involved in her offence. [ 102 ] The court must also consider the sentencing principle of parity and decide if the factors involved in Ms. Laboissonniere's case are sufficiently similar to those of Mr.

Lennox to warrant the same sentencing result of a conditional discharge. [ 103 ] In the Lennox case, Judge Harris thoroughly discussed the legal considerations related to the granting of a conditional discharge. All of those comments have applicability to the subject case. Part of the comments addressed the sentencing principle of parity.

On that issue, the court in Peepre had this to say at paragraph 25: In my view, conclusions as to what sentence will be appropriate in similar cases in the future will be informed by consideration of the decision in this case and other cases involving the Stanley Cup riot offenders. There should be consistency in the sentencing of similarly situated offenders participating in the same set of offences, but the individual circumstances of an offender must always be considered. [ 104 ] Ms. Laboissonniere's criminal conduct was impulsive and lasted for a very short period of time.

She quickly discarded the items she took from the store after she exited the store. Her actions on the night of June 15, 2011, were very irresponsible.

She acknowledges that, and since that day, she has done all that could reasonably be expected of her to try to right the wrong she committed. [ 105 ] It is an important part of this ruling to recognize that the accused's mental health condition lowers her level of moral blameworthiness for her criminal actions. [ 106 ] Upon a consideration of all that is before the court, I conclude on the special facts of this case that a discharge is in the interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest. This conclusion is not, in my opinion, affected by any consideration that may arise from the case of R. v.

Pham , 2013 SCC 15 , referred to by Judge Harris in the Lennox case. [ 107 ] The defendant may remain seated for the formal pronouncement of sentence. [ 108 ] For all of the reasons stated herein, on Count 1 of the information, I order that the accused be discharged conditional upon entering into a probation order for a period of 16 months. The terms of the order will first be the statutory ones: keep the peace and be of good behaviour, appear before the court if required, and keep the court informed of any change of name, address, or occupation. [ 109 ] The formal conditions on the order will be as follows: 1.

You must report to a probation officer at 275 East Cordova Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, before 4 p.m., Friday, July 12, 2013, and you must report thereafter as directed by your probation officer. 2. For the first three months of this order, you are not to be in any public place between the hours of 10 p.m. one day and 6 a.m. the following day seven days per week unless you have the prior permission of the court or the prior written permission of your probation officer. 3.

Within the first 12 months of this order, you must complete 60 hours of community work service under the supervision of and to the satisfaction of your probation officer. This community work service may include student seminar presentations similar to those you have done in the past. 4. At the direction of your probation officer, you must attend the Vancouver Forensic Outpatient Clinic, 300 - 307 West Broadway, Vancouver, British Columbia, or elsewhere, for psychological counselling and treatment to which you consent. 5.

You are not to enter any London Drugs Limited store in the Province of British Columbia. [ 110 ] I direct that the accused be given a copy of the order, it be read to her, and she be informed of the Criminal Code provisions that apply to it. The essence of this sentence is that if Ms. Laboissonniere does not commit a criminal offence in the next 16 months, she will not receive a criminal record for the subject offence. [ 111 ] This case attracts a $100 victim surcharge. I am inclined to order payment of that amount by August 31 of this year. [ 112 ] Mr.

Baker, do you have any contrary submission on that point? [ 113 ] MR. BAKER: No, Your Honour. [ 114 ] THE COURT: On Count 1, I order that the accused pay a victim surcharge of $100 payable on or before August 31, 2013. [ 115 ] Ms. Tomasson, do you have a formal direction for the clerk of the court with respect to Count 2 on the information? [ 116 ] MS. TOMASSON: Yes, Your Honour. I direct a stay of proceedings on Count 2.

[ 117 ] THE COURT: Very well. Now, apart from any further submissions counsel may have, that would appear to complete the sentencing in this matter. I am going to ask the assistance of Madam Registrar to return to Mr. Baker my copies of Exhibit 9 that might have a useful purpose elsewhere. [ 118 ] Is there anything further in this matter from either counsel? [ 119 ] MR. BAKER: No, Your Honour. [ 120 ] MS. TOMASSON: No, thank you, Your Honour. [ 121 ] THE COURT: Very well. That completes this matter then. The defendant, of course, must attend the registry. Court will now adjourn, please. (REASONS CONCLUDED)